Prison as punishment

[mlmooney89]

I have to argue though, how would you go about enforcing a ban from using cellphones, or even cars?

There's ways around that, very easy ones. You could just use someone else's car and use a phone that's on a contract in someone else's name. That's not an effective form of punishment. I actually really like the idea on paper, but it's not very practical.

You would take away their driver's license sweetie not the actual car.

[vorlon13]

here's where my idea comes in:

see, the guy has an RFID chip implanted somewhere he can't dig it out with a steak knife. any car he gets into automatically triggers it's self destruct system if he tries to start it.


Same with a cellphone, he grabs it, it explodes. Not strong enough to kill him, but if it blows his hand off, well, his lawyer did negotiate the RFID thing in lieu of actual jail time.

[Regina]

I have to argue though, how would you go about enforcing a ban from using cellphones, or even cars?

There's ways around that, very easy ones. You could just use someone else's car and use a phone that's on a contract in someone else's name. That's not an effective form of punishment. I actually really like the idea on paper, but it's not very practical.

You would take away their driver's license sweetie not the actual car.

But again, you can't enforce that.

You can take away the driver's license yes. There's still nothing stopping that person from getting in a car, either their own or someone else's, and driving around. It's not often the police just stop people "for no reason" just to check if they have a driver's license, it's very easy to get away with driving without one unless you attract attention to yourself while driving.

[robvalue]

Thanks everyone for the very interesting discussion

Here are some more of my thoughts, which aren't meant to come down on any particular side but just to analyse.

People use their phones while driving. A very large amount. I don't have the figures, but I've always heard it's significant. As I said, the current deterrent of prison is not working. I do appreciate campaigns have been made to try to address this, and they've probably had some success.

But let's say for the sake of argument we have 10% of drivers who have their ability to drive significantly impaired by using a phone (with their hands as opposed to hands free). Do they all deserve jail time already at this point? It's going to be a matter of chance which of these drivers happens to eventually kill someone as a result of this impairment. So it's down to chance who gets put in jail, while others receive a much lesser punishment when caught using their phone. Yet they're all driving with the same degree of danger, and it will be an accident in all cases.

[Foxaèr]

People use their phones while driving.

I was jogging yesterday. I had the right of way and had I been a few seconds faster I would have been hit by this guy who was too busy looking at his phone to bother pressing the break for the red light. He went well past the line and I had to jog around the back of his car.

[mlmooney89]

You would take away their driver's license sweetie not the actual car.

But again, you can't enforce that.

You can take away the driver's license yes. There's still nothing stopping that person from getting in a car, either their own or someone else's, and driving around. It's not often the police just stop people "for no reason" just to check if they have a driver's license, it's very easy to get away with driving without one unless you attract attention to yourself while driving.

Aside from putting people in jail you can't stop them from doing anything. I get that they can still get behind the wheel illegally, people literally do it all the time. You know how many times I watch someone pull up in a truck then hand me a state ID and not a driver's license? You can't have both so if they have a state ID I know they don't have a DL and they are driving illegally. But really what is the government supposed to do? Keep tabs on every single person and follow them around to make sure they don't get behind the wheel? Any punishment is going to have its flaws. Don't be petty just to argue.

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be isolation.  You put people in jail if you think that's the only way to stop them from doing "x".  OFC, you've just assumed that this is so in the case of the texter who hits someone.  I wonder what the rate of recidivism is for vehicular manslaughter?  I bet it's pretty low, which puts the hot pokers to the claim that jail is the only way to stop them.

I think it's ironic that you decided to drop a line about not being petty just to argue, considering the rational that directly preceded that sentence. OFC there are people who will reoffend, or who will flaunt a ruling...but every "punshment" has it's flaws....so......

Unless were talking about those people, specifically, then what's the point? OFC something additional has to be done about people who are comfortable reoffending, people who put themselves into contempt or violate the terms of their probation. That;s sort of the point of probation. To see if a person can comport themselves lawfully for a set period of time...so that we -don;t- have to ruin their lives with a prison time for, say, an accident. Negligence, a momentary lapse in judgement not at all limited to them and currently being expressed by many others who aren't so much as on probation or even receiving a warning - who are still texting and driving even though they can see that guy go to jail.

Let me ask this another way, what does sending the man to jail do that taking his license, and yes..confiscating his vehicle as part of an on-going judgement against him.... doesn't do, with respect to people being killed by text-and-drivers, or this specific text-and-driver?

[paulpablo]

Thanks everyone for the very interesting discussion

Here are some more of my thoughts, which aren't meant to come down on any particular side but just to analyse.

People use their phones while driving. A very large amount. I don't have the figures, but I've always heard it's significant. As I said, the current deterrent of prison is not working. I do appreciate campaigns have been made to try to address this, and they've probably had some success.

But let's say for the sake of argument we have 10% of drivers who have their ability to drive significantly impaired by using a phone (with their hands as opposed to hands free). Do they all deserve jail time already at this point? It's going to be a matter of chance which of these drivers happens to eventually kill someone as a result of this impairment. So it's down to chance who gets put in jail, while others receive a much lesser punishment when caught using their phone. Yet they're all driving with the same degree of danger, and it will be an accident in all cases.

I think personally I would deal with the situation pretty much the way it already is dealt with but perhaps a little harsher.  I'd impose a fine and points on the license for the first offense. A driving ban/suspension on the second offence and a prison sentence on the third offence.  Possibly an asbo type ankle tag could be an alternative punishment to the prison sentence.

[Whateverist]

Read the first page. Interesting debate. To really make the punishment fit the crime it would be nice if this driver who was criminally negligent lost access to phones and driving. Warehousing them and providing for their upkeep seems an unnecessary and excessive burden for the state. Now, what technological means exist to enforce this access and what stepped up penalty should there be for circumventing them?

[mlmooney89]

That would be isolation.  You put people in jail if you think that's the only way to stop them from doing "x".  OFC, you've just assumed that this is so in the case of the texter who hits someone.  I wonder what the rate of recidivism is for vehicular manslaughter?  I bet it's pretty low, which puts the hot pokers to the claim that jail is the only way to stop them.

I think it's ironic that you decided to drop a line about not being petty just to argue, considering the rational that directly preceded that sentence.  OFC there are people who will reoffend, or who will flaunt a ruling...but every "punshment" has it's flaws....so......

Unless were talking about those people, specifically, then what's the point?  OFC something additional has to be done about people who are comfortable reoffending, people who put themselves into contempt or violate the terms of their probation.  That;s sort of the point of probation.  To see if a person can comport themselves lawfully for a set period of time...so that we -don;t- have to ruin their lives with a prison time for, say, an accident.  Negligence, a momentary lapse in judgement not at all limited to them and currently being  expressed by many others who aren't so much as on probation or even receiving a warning - who are still texting and driving even though they can see that guy go to jail.

Let me ask this another way, what does sending the man to jail do that taking his license, and yes..confiscating his vehicle as part of an on-going judgement against him.... doesn't do, with respect to people being killed by text-and-drivers, or this specific text-and-driver?

Please quote me in the future because I normally just skim over things if they don't pertain to me. I just happened to see the petty just to argue and realized you were talking to me. Also what does OFC mean? And I disagree with the taking their car. That is their property that they paid for and unless they owe money I don't think it should be taken. What if they wanted to give it to their kid, if it was the only means of transportation for their spouse? If they only have one car and share it and you take it how is the spouse supposed to get to work?